"The creative man," wrote Franz Marc, "knows the past by leaving it in peace and not by living in it." I came across this quotation in a nauseating exhibition of what is termed "modern art". It formed part of the artist's argument for the gruesome paintings that adorned the walls; pictures that I think would have been much better placed on the cover of "Weird Tales", the famous pulp horror magazine.
It seems that most of the paintings in modern art (of the Turner prize variety) have long since parted company with the Platonic ideals of the True, the Good and the Beautiful. Instead, we are presented with walls full of their opposite - the False, the Bad, and the Ugly; we see pictures that distort, degrade and generally are aesthetically revolting.
Such paintings are usually presented as works of "the creative imagination". Now if Dr Frankenstein's monster can be described as a "work of the creative imagination", then I imagine that there is some justification for so describing a gallery of grotesques. But while Frankenstein - in Mary Shelley's novel - is sickened and disgusted by the sight of what he has made, some modern artists seem to revel in such sights. The rationale for this is that they are "breaking free", getting rid of all their repressions onto the canvas. If that is indeed the case, then why try to make the rest of the world look at them with admiration? Why not let such pictures adorn the bedroom or kitchen of the artist's own house, instead on unleashing them upon the public? I suspect, however, that the artist would be rather horrified at having them hang around the place.
Another favourite rationale is that the artist is showing what they have learned on primitive art. By this, of course, they really mean tribal art; they are not emulating the simplicity of prehistoric cave paintings. But while it is true that some tribal art is very grotesque, there are parts of tribal art and decoration that are aesthetically very pleasing. Why, if these artists are so full of the importance of tribal art, do they concern themselves only with a simplified version of its darker manifestations?
I do think that some modern art can be very attractive, but I think that such is usually the case when the artist is, to some degree, trying to measure up to some ideals of harmony or beauty; what is not attractive are the supposed attempts to
imitate another culture's art, which seem to succeed in producing only a pale and anaemic pastiche of the original.
Nor do I think much of the argument that modem art tries to portray the whole of reality - both the ugliness and beauty that are found in everyday life.
It is true that we should not thoughtlessly gloss over the unpleasant side of life, but modern art seems to make a point of dwelling there. There is a story of how Oliver Cromwell made it clear that he wished his portrait to be true to him - "warts and all." But when one considers an "acclaimed modern artist" such as Francis Bacon, it is clear that, if given a similar remit, he would probably have just painted the warts on their own.
The trouble is that the modern artist has forgotten all sense of the past; as a result, there is no greatness, but only fragmentary mediocrity. It would be nearer the truth to rephrase the saying of Franz Marc: "The 'creative' man knows the past by leaving in it pieces and not in living by it."
It seems that most of the paintings in modern art (of the Turner prize variety) have long since parted company with the Platonic ideals of the True, the Good and the Beautiful. Instead, we are presented with walls full of their opposite - the False, the Bad, and the Ugly; we see pictures that distort, degrade and generally are aesthetically revolting.
Such paintings are usually presented as works of "the creative imagination". Now if Dr Frankenstein's monster can be described as a "work of the creative imagination", then I imagine that there is some justification for so describing a gallery of grotesques. But while Frankenstein - in Mary Shelley's novel - is sickened and disgusted by the sight of what he has made, some modern artists seem to revel in such sights. The rationale for this is that they are "breaking free", getting rid of all their repressions onto the canvas. If that is indeed the case, then why try to make the rest of the world look at them with admiration? Why not let such pictures adorn the bedroom or kitchen of the artist's own house, instead on unleashing them upon the public? I suspect, however, that the artist would be rather horrified at having them hang around the place.
Another favourite rationale is that the artist is showing what they have learned on primitive art. By this, of course, they really mean tribal art; they are not emulating the simplicity of prehistoric cave paintings. But while it is true that some tribal art is very grotesque, there are parts of tribal art and decoration that are aesthetically very pleasing. Why, if these artists are so full of the importance of tribal art, do they concern themselves only with a simplified version of its darker manifestations?
I do think that some modern art can be very attractive, but I think that such is usually the case when the artist is, to some degree, trying to measure up to some ideals of harmony or beauty; what is not attractive are the supposed attempts to
imitate another culture's art, which seem to succeed in producing only a pale and anaemic pastiche of the original.
Nor do I think much of the argument that modem art tries to portray the whole of reality - both the ugliness and beauty that are found in everyday life.
It is true that we should not thoughtlessly gloss over the unpleasant side of life, but modern art seems to make a point of dwelling there. There is a story of how Oliver Cromwell made it clear that he wished his portrait to be true to him - "warts and all." But when one considers an "acclaimed modern artist" such as Francis Bacon, it is clear that, if given a similar remit, he would probably have just painted the warts on their own.
The trouble is that the modern artist has forgotten all sense of the past; as a result, there is no greatness, but only fragmentary mediocrity. It would be nearer the truth to rephrase the saying of Franz Marc: "The 'creative' man knows the past by leaving in it pieces and not in living by it."
Posts
2 comments:
What a thoughtfully written, considered post tackling concepts of beauty and disgust. The works you saw clearly evoked strong feelings, and got you thinking about those feelings and why you have them. All inspired by a trip to a modern art gallery. There's a moral in there somewhere. : )
Tony your usually very well informed but I'm afraid this time you sound like Brian Sewell.
Post a Comment